Hi.

So first time in my life I played the "free-roll".
NLHE 6-ring style. 4800 people registrant, 108 winning places.

I tried to play as optimal as I could, and for 70% of game I managed to have more chips then average player, but then lost when blinds were big, and my optimal cards were beaten (it happens). I scored the 190th place.

My questions:

- Why does people even bother to play those tournaments if only top 5% of players are going home with SOMETHING? I mean - In that 1.5h they could make more money from cash-games.

- Single optimal move can sometimes ruin you - so why bother from mathematical point of view? [no re-buys]

- Is 190/4800 good or total s**t as there are many idiots?

- Stop or continue?

Tournaments are about getting a good enough return on investment when you do win that it more than makes up for the many, many times that you lose.

OP, having read your recent posts on a few different threads, I don't doubt that you have the commitment and the study skills to become an excellent poker player.

That said, between all of your memorization of the math and the million hours you've been playing free, it feels like you're expecting poker to work perfectly for you because you have studied, and online or live, it just doesn't work like that.

So let me get this straight, you have a sample size of 1, right?
.

If you want to stay sane in poker you simply cannot be results oriented.

You're expecting to win a tournament with 4800 entrants every single time? Of course that will never happen, even making the money is something you just cannot control. Some of the best tournament players in the world will not cash that much more than 15% (with normal payout structures).

You could play perfectly (which I doubt you did) 100s of times and not win a 4800 man tournament. Surely trolling or just stupid?

I think it's neither, for people who don't have a background in poker or statistical mathematics but do get that it is a skill game have troubles understanding it isn't like tennis where I would have no shot against Federer but that he wins pretty much every single time.

(un)Fortunately poker is an element of chance in it to prevent the best player from always winning so others feel they have a chance.

How much money have you made playing a quarter million play money hands?

I hate when you try something the first time and do it perfectly and still lose.

All of this is meaningless, btw and in no way indicative of "perfect gameplay".

Given the rest of your posts, the chance your play was "perfect" is zero.

You didn't play perfectly. No one plays perfectly. Ever.

Given the fact that you think you played perfectly indicates there are a lot of leaks in your game that you are completely unaware of, and that you aren't thinking of your game critically enough.

The idea that if you play perfectly you should win—or get itm—suggests you don't understand the game. If it worked this way there would be no money in poker.


Oh, and play money players play freerolls because it is a way to start a real money bankroll that they can then build upon. And yes, it has been done. It is a cool thing to do if you can accomplish it; but, as you have noted, it is not easy.


--klez

I would bet a large some that you didn't play perfectly.

You really need to buy a good poker book and go from there. (I've said this three times now across your threads and you seem to ignore the advice)

I played hundreds of freeroll MTTs a few years ago. I never even reached a final table. I guess I should have learned to play perfectly. :/

Brag: I won two tourneys last week.
Beat: They were both heads up SnGs.
Variance: One of the players was sitting out.

But he's memorized starting hand value charts.

The reason poker has such profit potential is because you can play perfectly and still lose.

If perfect play always won, poker would be like chess.

Hey man. No I do not ignore you.

I'm still investigating the reviews to check if 30$ investment into eBook is worthy, as this eBook cost more then some real books about nuclear physics.

I'm super skimpy when it comes to money.


Thank you guys for all help. I guess it was bad idea to put my frustration on forum hehe.

No, it was a good idea, but seriously, I think you are approaching this all wrong. Simply memorizing the math and expecting things to go your way is not playing perfectly.

just buy the book. especially since you played 280k hands on play money.

And an indication that you undervalue your time since buying a book would have saved you about 275k hands.

The book pays for its self if you apply and understand what the author is telling you. I struggled to beat 2nl and 5nl then got the book and it helped me so much. Made it up to 10nl before moving over to sit and go's due to having the chance to be coached.

Winning at poker is more hard work than most people realize.

Good poker books should be considered an investment rather than an expense.

As Dwimmer said: if you study and apply what you read in the book, you will win exponentially more than the price of the book from the information it contains.

GL,

--klez

This post frustrates me, how in over your head are you??

You played a freeroll tourney and 'expected' to win, claiming you 'played perfectly' despite having NEVER, I repeat, having NEVER played in any tourneys before and 280k+ hands on 6max play money for experience??

But that is not the point, how does this even make sense?? This is honestly one of the WORST posts of ALL time. ARGHHH!!!!

I wouldn't go that far. But just listen to us that have read it. it will pay for itself.

Why did you?